Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Virchows Archiv 5/2021

Open Access 26.07.2021 | Original Article

Application of biomarkers in the diagnosis of uncertain samples of core needle biopsy of thyroid nodules

verfasst von: Yan Xiong, Xin Li, Li Liang, Dong Li, Limin Yan, Xueying Li, Jiting Di, Ting Li

Erschienen in: Virchows Archiv | Ausgabe 5/2021

Abstract

Core needle biopsy (CNB) is now more frequently used for the preoperative diagnosis of thyroid nodules. Based on morphology alone, 5–20% of CNB samples cannot be determined as malignant or benign. Compared to fine-needle biopsy (FNB), samples collected by CNB are more accessible for various tests. Therefore, studying biomarkers’ application in distinguishing uncertain CNB samples of thyroid nodules is a practical need. Patients of thyroid nodules with both CNB and matched resected specimens were reviewed. Cases classified as indeterminate lesions, follicular neoplasms, and suspicious for malignancy were retrieved. All CNB samples were stained by immunohistochemistry (IHC) using antibodies against CK19, galectin-3, HBME-1, and CD56 and detected by next-generation sequencing (NGS) using an OncoAim® thyroid cancer multigene assay kit (Singlera Genomics) that detected 26 genes. Taking the resected specimens’ classification as the gold standard, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), accuracy of a single biomarker, and various combinations for discriminating malignancy from benignity were calculated. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy for preoperative malignancy evaluation were as follows. In the cohort of non-follicular-neoplasm-lesions (non-FN-lesion), they were 95.16%, 53.85%, 90.77%, 70.00%, and 88.00% for CK19; 95.16%, 38.46%, 88.06%, 62.50%, and 85.33% for galectin-3; 77.42%, 76.92%, 94.12%, 41.67%, and 58.00% for HBME-1; 66.13%, 100.00%, 100.00%, 38.24%, and 72.00% for CD56; 90.32%, 92.31%, 98.25%, 66.67%, and 90.67% for NGS; and 88.71%, 92.30%, 98.21%, 63.16%, and 89.33% for integrated IHC. In the cohort of follicular neoplasms (FN), they were 30.43%, 77.77%, 77.77%, 30.43%, and 43.75% for CK19; 73.91%, 66.67%, 85.00%, 50.00%, and 71.88% for galectin-3; 26.09%, 88.89%, 85.71%, 32.00%, and 43.75% for HBME-1; 26.09%, 100.00%, 100.00%, 34.62%, and 46.88% for CD56; 52.17%, 88.89%, 92.31%, 42.11%, and 62.50% for NGS; 82.61%, 66.67%, 86.36%, 60.00%, and 78.13% for integrated IHC; and 100%, 66.67%, 88.46%, 100%, and 90.63% for integrated IHC-NGS. The application of biomarkers in distinguishing uncertain CNB samples of thyroid nodules is available and capable. CD56 negative or NGS positive suggests malignancy strongly for both FN and non-FN-lesion, which may be used as a “rule in” tool. The negative predictive value of the integrated IHC and the integrated IHC-NGS implies a high possibility to be benign for non-FN-lesion and FN separately, which can work as a “rule out” tool. Considering the balance of specificity and sensitivity, NGS is the best for non-FN-lesion and the integrated IHC-NGS is the best for FN.
Hinweise

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Background

Thyroid nodules are a common disease of the endocrine system. The prevalence is 20 to 76% in the Chinese population as identified by high-resolution ultrasound, and 5 to 15% of nodules are malignant [1]. It is crucial to screen these malignant cases for further treatment. The biopsy techniques involved in thyroid nodules’ preoperative diagnosis include fine-needle biopsy (FNB) and core needle biopsy (CNB). FNB has been used worldwide for many years, and CNB has been used more and more frequently in Asia in the recent 10 years [2, 3]. Several large single-center studies have shown no significant differences between FNB and CNB in terms of pain, tolerability, or complications due to the advances in CNB devices and the development of high-resolution ultrasound [4]. Compared to FNB, the morphology of cells and architectures of the tumors can be seen in the CNB samples, giving more support to pathologists to make a correct diagnosis. Published studies have shown that the accuracy of CNB for the thyroid nodules’ preoperative diagnosis was higher than of FNB [5]. However, approximately 5–20% of CNB samples are still uncertain of being benign or malignant based on morphology alone [5, 6]. Compared to FNB, samples collected by CNB are more accessible for various testing methods. Therefore, studying biomarkers’ application in distinguishing uncertain CNB samples of thyroid nodules is a practical need. We retrieved 107 cases of thyroid nodules with uncertain CNB samples and matched resected specimens. Taking the matched resected specimens’ diagnosis as the gold standard, we studied biomarkers’ capability to distinguish uncertain CNB samples.

Methods

Patients and samples

Patients of thyroid nodules with both CNB and matched resected specimens treated at Peking University First Hospital between January 2015 and December 2020 were reviewed. CNB was used as the first-line preoperative diagnosis in all patients without prior FNB according to publication protocol [7]. The Peking University First Hospital Ethics Committee approved the usage of all patient samples and clinical data and an informed consent exemption (ethical approval no.: (2018) Research No. 147).

Pathological review

All hematoxylin and eosin (HE) staining slides were separately reviewed by two pathologists blinded to the original diagnoses. The CNB samples were diagnosed according to the Korean proposal: (I) nondiagnostic or unsatisfactory; (II) benign lesion; (III) indeterminate lesion; (IV) follicular neoplasm; (V) suspicious for malignancy; and (VI) malignant (Table 1) [8]. Cases classified as III–V were retrieved as “uncertain.” The resected samples were diagnosed according to the 2017 WHO classification of tumors of endocrine organs (4th): conventional papillary thyroid carcinoma (CPTC), follicular variant papillary thyroid carcinoma (FVPTC), follicular thyroid carcinoma (FTC), follicular adenoma (FA), nodular hyperplasia (NH), and thyroiditis [9]. The cases with inconsistent diagnoses were reviewed, and agreements were achieved by discussion. Furthermore, we divided the cohort into two groups, i.e., the follicular neoplasm (FN) and the non-follicular-neoplasm-lesion (non-FN-lesion), to see if the biomarkers’ efficiency was different. The FN included FTC and FA. The non-FN-lesion included CPTC, FVPTC, NH, and thyroiditis.
Table 1
Diagnostic categories of thyroid core needle biopsy proposed by the Korean Thyroid Association [5]
I. Nondiagnostic or unsatisfactory
• Non-tumor adjacent thyroid tissue only
• Extrathyroid tissue only (e.g., skeletal muscle, mature adipose tissue)
• Acellular specimen (e.g., acellular fibrotic tissue, acellular hyalinized tissue, cystic fluid only)
• Blood clot only
• Other
II. Benign lesion
• Benign follicular nodule
• Hashimoto’s thyroiditis
• Subacute granulomatous thyroiditis
• Nonthyroidal lesion (e.g., parathyroid lesions, benign neurogenic tumors, benign lymph node)
• Other
III. Indeterminate lesion
IIIa. Indeterminate follicular lesion with nuclear atypia
IIIb. Indeterminate follicular lesion with architectural atypia
IIIc. Indeterminate follicular lesion with nuclear and architectural atypia
IIId. Indeterminate follicular lesion with Hürthle cell changes
IIIe. Indeterminate lesion, not otherwise specified
IV. Follicular neoplasm
IVa. Follicular neoplasm, conventional type
IVb. Follicular neoplasm with nuclear atypia
IVc. Hürthle cell neoplasm
IVd. Follicular neoplasm, not otherwise specified
V. Suspicious for malignancy
• Suspicious for papillary carcinoma, medullary carcinoma, poorly differentiated carcinoma, metastatic carcinoma, lymphoma, etc
VI. Malignant
• Papillary thyroid carcinoma, poorly differentiated carcinoma, anaplastic thyroid carcinoma, medullary thyroid carcinoma, lymphoma, metastatic carcinoma, etc

Immunohistochemistry stain

The primary antibodies included antibodies against CK19 (Dako, Clone RCK108), galectin-3 (Invitrogen, A3A12), HBME-1 (Dako, Clone HBME-1), and CD56 (Dako, Clone 123C3). The antigen retrieval buffer was EDTA (pH 9.0), the temperature was 98 °C, and the duration was 20 min. We used EnVision FLEX + Mouse LINKER to amplify the signal, the EnVision FLEX Mini Kit to visualize the immunohistochemistry (IHC) reaction, and the Autostainer Link 48 (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) to complete the procedure. The normal thyroid follicles around the nodules were the best IHC staining and evaluation controls for CD56. For CK19, galectin-3, and HBME-1, the known positive samples were put side by side with the target samples on each slide as controls.

Scoring the results of a single IHC biomarker

Tumors with membranous ± cytoplasmic reactivity for CK19 in more than 10% of cells with strong intensity were considered positive. Tumors with cytoplasmic + nuclear reactivity for galectin-3 and membranous reactivity for HBME-1 or CD56 in more than 10% of cells were deemed positive regardless of intensity [10].

Integrating IHC markers

The cohort positive of integrated IHC consisted of two groups: The first was CD56 negative no matter whether CK19, galectin-3, and HBME-1 were stained or not; The second was CD56 positive and the other markers simultaneously positive. The cutoff of simultaneously positive markers was different in the different panels. The first panel, named IHC-COMB1, required all three simultaneously positive; the second panel, named IHC-COMB2, required at least two, and the third panel, named IHC-COMB3, required at least one.

Next-generation sequencing

The percentage of tumor components in the CNB samples was recorded. Genomic DNA was extracted from unstained 5-µm-thick paraffin-embedded sections using the QIAamp DNA FFPE Tissue Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) following the manufacturer’s instructions. After extraction, DNA quality was evaluated by 1% agarose gel electrophoresis. The concentration of all samples was quantitated by a NanoDrop system (Invitrogen Life Technologies, Carlsbad, CA, USA) and Qubit Fluorometer (Invitrogen Life Technologies).
Targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) was conducted using an OncoAim® thyroid cancer multigene assay kit (Singlera Genomics, Inc., Shanghai, China) that detected 26 genes (Table 2). According to the kit protocol, 50 ng of DNA for each sample was used to generate sequencing libraries. DNA was fragmented by 5 × WGS Fragmentation Mix (Qiagen, Beverly, MA, USA). After quality control and quantification, the library product was sequenced using 150 bp paired-end runs on the NextSeq 500 platform (Illumina, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA). Sequencing data were then aligned to the reference human genome (hg19). Read mapping, quality control, variant calling, and genotyping were performed automatically using the tool kit supplied in the OncoAim® Kit (Singlera). The minimum confidence threshold for variant calling was set to 5%. Variant functional annotation was performed with the ENSEMBL Variant Effect Predictor tool.
Table 2
Genes detected by OncoAim® thyroid cancer multigene assay kit
Gene
Transcript
Variation type
Mutation
Fusion
BRAF
NM_004333
Exon 15
Introns 7–10
RET
NM_020975
Exons 7–16
Introns 10–11
NRAS
NM_002524
Exons 2–3
-
KRAS
NM_033360
Exons 2–4
-
HRAS
NM_176795
Exons 2–3
-
AKT1
NM_005163
Exons 2–7, exons 9–12
-
ATM
NM_000051
All exons
-
CNNB1
NM_001904
All exons
-
TSHR
NM_000369
All exons
-
APC
NM_000038
All exons
-
TTN
NM_001256850
All exons
-
TG
NM_003235
All exons
-
RB1
NM_000321
All exons
-
MEN1
NM_000244
All exons
-
PDGFRA
NM_006206
All exons
-
PIK3CA
NM_006218
All exons
-
CDKN2A
NM_000077
All exons
-
EIF1AX
NM_001412
All exons
-
PTEN
NM_000314
Exons 5–8
-
GNAS
NM_000516
Exons 8–9
-
TP53
NM_000546
Exons 5–9
-
TERT
NM_198253
Promoter (chr5:1,295,183–1,295,302)
-
PPARG
NM_005037
-
Intron 1
NTRK1
NM_002529
-
Intron 9, exon 12
NTRK3
NM_002530
-
Intron 13
ALK
NM_004304
-
Intron 16, intron 19
Based on ClinVar (Version 20,280,919), the result was marked as pathogenic, likely pathogenic, uncertain significance, likely benign, benign, or inconclusive. We recorded “confirmed pathogenic” or “likely pathogenic” as NGS positive.

Integrating IHC and NGS

The cohort positive of integrated IHC-NGS consisted of two groups: The first was NGS positive no matter whether the IHC markers were stained or not; The second was NGS negative and at least one of four IHC markers positive.

Comparison between biomarkers’ results of CNB samples and classification of matched resected specimens

The results of biomarkers detected on CNB samples were compared to the classification of matched resected specimens.

Statistical analysis

We put resected samples classified as CPTC, FVPTC, and FTC into a single group as “malignant” and thyroiditis, NH, and FA into another group as “benign” for statistical analysis. Taking the resected specimens’ classification as the gold standard, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of each biomarker and various integrated panels for discriminating malignancy from benignity were calculated.

Results

Patients

The study included 107 patients. Of them, 27 were males and 80 were females, with ages ranging from 20 to 82 and a mean age of 50. Sixty-five patients were younger than 55, thirty-nine were older than 55, and three were 55.

Histological classification

The CNB samples included 40 (37.4%) cases of indeterminate, 32 (29.9%) cases of follicular neoplasm, and 35 (32.7%) cases of suspicious malignancy.
Twenty-two (20.6%) resected specimens were classified as benign, including 9 (8.4%) cases of NH, 4 (3.7%) cases of thyroiditis, and 9 (8.4%) cases of FA. Eighty-five (79.4%) resected specimens were classified as malignant, including 35 (32.7%) cases of CPTC, 27 (25.2%) cases of FVPTC, and 23 (21.5%) cases of FTC.
Of the 40 cases classified as indeterminate on CNB samples, the matched resected samples were classified as thyroiditis for 4 cases, NH for 9 cases, and FVPTC for 27 cases. Of the 32 cases classified as follicular neoplasm on CNB samples, the matched resected samples were classified as FA for 9 cases and FTC for 23 cases. All 35 cases classified as suspicious malignancy on CNB samples were classified as CPTC on resected samples (Table 3).
Table 3
Comparison between classification of CNB samples and classification of matched resected specimens based on morphology alone
Classification of resected samples
Classification of CNB samples based on morphology, no
Indeterminate lesion
Follicular neoplasm
Suspicious for malignancy
Total
NH
9
0
0
9
Thyroiditis
4
0
0
4
FA
0
9
0
9
CPTC
0
0
35
35
FVPTC
27
0
0
27
FTC
0
23
0
23
Total
40
32
35
107
CNB, core needle biopsy; NH, nodular hyperplasia; FA, follicular adenoma; CPTC, conventional papillary thyroid carcinoma; FVPTC, follicular variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma; FTC follicular thyroid carcinoma

Results of IHC

Seventy-four cases (69.16%) were positive for CK19, including 31 cases of indeterminate lesion, 9 cases of follicular neoplasm, and 34 cases of suspicious malignancy. Eighty-seven cases (81.31%) were positive for galectin-3, including 33 cases of indeterminate lesion, 20 cases of follicular neoplasm, and 34 cases of suspicious malignancy. Fifty-eight cases (54.21%) were positive for HBME-1, including 24 cases of indeterminate lesion, 7 cases of follicular neoplasm, and 27 cases of suspicious malignancy. Forty-seven cases (43.93%) were negative for CD56, including 17 cases of indeterminate lesion, 6 cases of follicular neoplasm, and 24 cases of suspicious malignancy. Sixty-four cases (59.81%) were positive for IHC-COMB1, including 23 cases of indeterminate lesion, 8 cases of follicular neoplasm, and 33 cases of suspicious malignancy. Seventy-six cases (71.03%) were positive for IHC-COMB2, including 32 cases of indeterminate lesion, 11 cases of follicular neoplasm, and 33 cases of suspicious malignancy. Ninety-five cases (88.79%) were positive for IHC-COMB3, including 38 cases of indeterminate lesion, 22 cases of follicular neoplasm, and 35 cases of suspicious malignancy (Table 4).
Table 4
The results of immunohistochemistry of CNB samples
IHC
Classification of CNB samples based on morphology, no
Markers
Results
Indeterminate lesion
Follicular neoplasm
Suspicious for malignancy
Total
CK19
Negative
9
23
1
33
Positive
31
9
34
74
Galectin-3
Negative
7
12
1
20
Positive
33
20
34
87
HBME-1
Negative
16
25
8
49
Positive
24
7
27
58
CD56
Positive
23
26
11
60
Negative
17
6
24
47
IHC-COMB1
Negative
17
24
2
43
Positive
23
8
33
64
IHC-COMB2
Negative
8
21
2
31
Positive
32
11
33
76
IHC-COMB3
Negative
2
10
0
12
Positive
38
22
35
95
Total
 
40
32
35
107
CNB, core needle biopsy; IHC, immunohistochemistry; IHC-COMB1, CD56 negative no matter whether CK19, galectin-3, and HBME-1 are positive or not/CD56 positive and all of CK19, galectin-3, and HBME-1 simultaneously positive; IHC-COMB2, CD56 negative no matter whether CK19, galectin-3, and HBME-1 are positive or not/CD56 positive and at least two of CK19, galectin-3, and HBME-1 simultaneously positive; IHC-COMB3, CD56 negative no matter whether CK19, galectin-3, and HBME-1 are positive or not/CD56 positive and at least one of CK19, galectin-3, and HBME-1 simultaneously positive

Results of NGS

Sixty-eight cases (63.55%) were positive for NGS. The 41 cases with BRAF V600E mutation included 12 cases of indeterminate lesions and 29 cases of suspicious malignancy. The 8 cases with RAS mutation included 3 cases of indeterminate lesion and 5 cases of follicular neoplasm. The 7 cases with RET fusion included 5 cases of indeterminate lesion, 1 case of follicular neoplasm, and 1 case of suspicious malignancy. All of the 4 cases with NTRK fusion were indeterminate lesions. The one case with ALK fusion was indeterminate lesion. All of the 4 cases with TERT mutation were follicular neoplasm. The rest of the three follicular neoplasms had PTEN mutation, PPARγ fusion, and non-V600E BRAF mutation separately (Table 5).
Table 5
The results of OncoAim®-NGS of CNB samples
NGS
Classification of CNB samples based on morphology, no
Indeterminate lesion
Follicular neoplasm
Suspicious for malignancy
Total
Negative
15
19
5
39
BRAF V600E
12
0
29
41
PTEN mutation
0
1
0
1
ALK fusion
1
0
0
1
RET fusion
5
1
1
7
NTRK fusion
4
0
0
4
RAS mutation
3
5
0
8
PPARγ fusion
0
1
0
1
TERT mutation
0
4
0
4
Non-V600E BRAF mutation
0
1
0
1
Total
40
32
35
107
CNB, core needle biopsy; NGS, next-generation sequencing

Results of integrated IHC-NGS

Ninety-nine cases (92.52%) were positive for the integrated IHC-NGS, including 38 cases of indeterminate lesion, 26 cases of follicular neoplasm, and 35 cases of suspicious malignancy.

Comparison between biomarkers’ results of CNB samples and classification of matched resected specimens

Of the 74 cases positive of CK19 on CNB samples, 66 were classified as malignant and 8 were classified as benign on the matched resected samples. Of the 87 cases positive of galectin-3 on CNB samples, 76 were classified as malignant and 11 were classified as benign on the matched resected samples. Of the 58 cases positive of HBME-1 on CNB samples, 54 were classified as malignant and 4 were classified as benign on the matched resected samples. All 47 cases of CD56 negative on CNB samples were diagnosed as malignant on the matched resected sample too (Table 6) (Figs. 1, 2, and 3).
Table 6
Predictive value of biomarkers for all cases
 
CNB samples, no
Matched resected specimens, no
 
Predictive value, %
  
Benignity
Malignancy
Total
Sen
Spe
PPV
NPV
AC
CK19
Negative
14
19
33
77.65
63.63
89.19
42.42
74.77
Positive
8
66
74
     
Galectin-3
Negative
11
9
20
89.41
50.00
87.36
55.00
81.31
Positive
11
76
87
     
HBME-1
Negative
18
31
49
63.53
81.81
93.10
36.73
67.29
Positive
4
54
58
     
CD56
Positive
22
38
60
55.29
100
100
36.67
64.49
Negative
0
47
47
     
IHC-COMB1
Negative
20
23
43
72.94
90.91
96.88
46.51
76.64
Positive
2
62
64
     
IHC-COMB2
Negative
15
16
31
81.18
68.18
90.79
48.39
78.50
Positive
7
69
76
     
IHC-COMB3
Negative
8
4
12
95.29
36.36
85.26
66.67
83.18
Positive
14
81
95
     
NGS
Negative
20
17
37
80.00
90.90
97.14
54.05
82.24
Positive
2
68
70
     
IHC-NGS
Negative
8
0
8
100
36.36
85.86
100
86.92
Positive
14
85
99
     
 
Total
22
85
107
     
CNB, core needle biopsy; Sen, sensitivity; Spe, specificity; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; AC, accuracy; IHC-COMB1, CD56 negative no matter whether CK19, galectin-3, and HBME-1 are positive or not/CD56 positive and all of CK19, galectin-3, and HBME-1 simultaneously positive; IHC-COMB2, CD56 negative no matter whether CK19, galectin-3, and HBME-1 are positive or not/CD56 positive and at least two of CK19, galectin-3, and HBME-1 simultaneously positive; IHC-COMB3, CD56 negative no matter whether CK19, galectin-3, and HBME-1 are positive or not/CD56 positive and at least one of CK19, galectin-3, and HBME-1 simultaneously positive; IHC-NGS, immunohistochemistry and next-generation sequencing combination
Of the 64 cases of IHC-COMB1 positive on CNB samples, 62 were classified as malignant and two were classified as benign on the matched resected samples. Of the 76 cases of IHC-COMB2 positive on CNB samples, 69 were classified as malignant and seven were classified as benign on the matched resected samples. Of the 95 cases of IHC-COMB3 positive on CNB samples, 81 were classified as malignant and 14 were classified as benign on the matched resected specimens (Table 6).
Of the 70 cases of NGS positive on CNB samples, 68 were classified as malignant and two were classified as benign on the matched resected specimens (Table 6). The 41 cases with BRAF V600E mutation included 29 cases of CPTC and 12 cases of FVPTC. The 8 cases with RAS mutation included 5 cases of FTC, 2 cases of FVPTC, and 1 case of NH. The 7 cases with RET fusion included 5 cases of FVPTC, 1 case of CPTC, and 1 case of FTC. All of the 4 cases with NTRK fusion were FVPTC. All of the 4 cases with TERT mutation were FTC. The one case with ALK fusion was FVPTC. The one case with PTEN mutation was FTC. The one case with PPARγ fusion was FTC. The one case with non-V600E BRAF mutation was FA.
Of the 99 cases positive of integrated IHC-NGS on CNB samples, 85 were classified as malignant and 14 were classified as benign on the matched resected samples (Table 6), including 35 cases of CPTC, 27 cases of FVPTC, 23 cases of FTC, 8 cases of NH, 3 cases of FA, and 3 cases of thyroiditis.

Predictive value of biomarkers

Taking the classification of the matched resected specimens as the gold standard, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy for preoperative malignancy evaluation for the whole cohort were 77.65%, 63.64%, 89.19%, 42.43%, and 74.77% for CK19; 89.42%, 50.00%, 87.36%, 55.00%, and 81.31% for galectin-3; 63.53%, 81.82%, 93.10%, 36.73%, and 67.29% for HBME-1; 55.29%, 100.00%, 100.00%, 36.67%, and 64.49% for CD56; 80.00%, 90.91%, 97.14%, 54.05%, and 82.24% for NGS; 72.94%, 90.91%, 96.88%, 46.51%, and 76.64% for IHC-COMB1; 81.18%, 68.18%, 90.79%, 48.39%, and 78.50% for IHC-COMB2; 95.29%, 36.36%, 85.26%, 66.67%, and 83.18% for IHC-COMB3; and 100.00%, 36.36%, 85.86%, 100.00%, and 86.92% for integrated IHC-NGS (Table 6).
The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy for preoperative malignancy evaluation of non-FN-lesions were 95.16%, 53.85%, 90.77%, 70.00%, and 88.00% for CK19; 95.16%, 38.46%, 88.06%, 62.50%, and 85.33% for galectin-3; 77.42%, 76.92%, 94.12%, 41.67%, and 58.00% for HBME-1; 66.13%, 100.00%, 100.00%, 38.24%, and 72.00% for CD56; 90.32%, 92.31%, 98.25%, 66.67%, and 90.67% for NGS; 88.71%, 92.30%, 98.21%, 63.16%, and 89.33% for IHC-COMB1; 96.77%, 61.54%, 92.31%, 80.00%, and 90.67% for IHC-COMB2; 100.00%, 15.38%, 84.93%, 100.00%, and 85.33% for IHC-COMB3; and 100.00%, 36.36%, 85.86%, 100.00%, and 86.92% for integrated IHC-NGS (Table 7).
Table 7
Predictive value of biomarkers for cases of non-follicular-neoplasm-lesion
 
CNB samples, no
Matched resected samples, no
 
Predictive value, %
 
Benignity
Malignancy
Total
Sen
Spe
PPV
NPV
AC
CK19
Negative
7
3
10
95.16
53.85
90.77
70.00
88.00
Positive
6
59
65
     
Galectin-3
Negative
5
3
8
95.16
38.46
88.06
62.50
85.33
Positive
8
59
67
     
HBME-1
Negative
10
14
24
77.42
76.92
94.12
41.67
58.00
Positive
3
48
51
     
CD56
Positive
13
21
34
66.13
100
100
38.24
72.00
Negative
0
41
41
     
IHC-COMB1
Negative
12
7
19
88.71
92.30
98.21
63.16
89.33
Positive
1
55
56
     
IHC-COMB2
Negative
8
2
10
96.77
61.54
92.31
80.00
90.67
Positive
5
60
65
     
IHC-COMB3
Negative
2
0
2
100
15.38
84.93
100
85.33
Positive
11
62
73
     
NGS
Negative
12
6
18
90.32
92.31
98.25
66.67
90.67
Positive
1
56
57
     
IHC-NGS
Negative
2
0
2
100
15.38
84.93
100
85.33
Positive
11
62
73
     
 
Total
13
62
75
     
CNB, core needle biopsy; Sen, sensitivity; Spe, specificity; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; AC, accuracy; IHC-COMB1, CD56 negative no matter whether CK19, galectin-3, and HBME-1 are positive or not/CD56 positive and all of CK19, galectin-3, and HBME-1 simultaneously positive; IHC-COMB2, CD56 negative no matter whether CK19, galectin-3, and HBME-1 are positive or not/CD56 positive and at least two of CK19, galectin-3, and HBME-1 simultaneously positive; IHC-COMB3, CD56 negative no matter whether CK19, galectin-3, and HBME-1 are positive or not/CD56 positive and at least one of CK19, galectin-3, and HBME-1 simultaneously positive; IHC-NGS, immunohistochemistry and next-generation sequencing combination
The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy for preoperative malignancy evaluation of FN were 30.43%, 77.77%, 77.77%, 30.43%, and 43.75% for CK19; 73.91%, 66.67%, 85.00%, 50.00%, and 71.88% for galectin-3; 26.09%, 88.89%, 85.71%, 32.00%, and 43.75% for HBME-1; 26.09%, 100.00%, 100.00%, 34.62%, and 46.88% for CD56; 52.17%, 88.89%, 92.31%, 42.11%, and 62.50% for NGS; 30.43%, 88.89%, 87.50%, 33.33%, and 46.88% for IHC-COMB1; 39.13%, 77.78%, 81.82%, 33.33%, and 50.00% for IHC-COMB2; 82.61%, 66.67%, 86.36%, 60.00%, and 78.13% for IHC-COMB3; and 100.00%, 66.67%, 88.46%, 100.00%, and 90.63% for integrated IHC-NGS integrated(Table 8).
Table 8
Predictive value of biomarkers for cases of follicular neoplasm
 
CNB samples, no
Matched resected samples, no
 
Predictive value, %
 
Benignity
Malignancy
Total
Sen
Spe
PPV
NPV
AC
CK19
Negative
7
16
23
30.43
77.77
77.77
30.43
43.75
Positive
2
7
9
     
Galectin-3
Negative
6
6
12
73.91
66.67
85.00
50.00
71.88
Positive
3
17
20
     
HBME-1
Negative
8
17
25
26.09
88.89
85.71
32.00
43.75
Positive
1
6
7
     
CD56
Positive
9
17
26
26.09
100
100
34.62
46.88
Negative
0
6
6
     
IHC-COMB1
Negative
8
16
24
30.43
88.89
87.50
33.33
46.88
Positive
1
7
8
     
IHC-COMB2
Negative
7
14
21
39.13
77.78
81.82
33.33
50.00
Positive
2
9
11
     
IHC-COMB3
Negative
6
4
10
82.61
66.67
86.36
60.00
78.13
Positive
3
19
22
     
NGS
Negative
8
11
19
52.17
88.89
92.31
42.11
62.50
Positive
1
12
13
     
IHC-NGS
Negative
6
0
6
100
66.67
88.46
100
90.63
Positive
3
23
26
     
 
Total
9
23
32
     
CNB, core needle biopsy; Sen, sensitivity; Spe, specificity; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; AC, accuracy; IHC-COMB1, CD56 negative no matter whether CK19, galectin-3, and HBME-1 are positive or not/CD56 positive and all of CK19, galectin-3, and HBME-1 simultaneously positive; IHC-COMB2, CD56 negative no matter whether CK19, galectin-3, and HBME-1 are positive or not/CD56 positive and at least two of CK19, galectin-3, and HBME-1 simultaneously positive; IHC-COMB3, CD56 negative no matter whether CK19, galectin-3, and HBME-1 are positive or not/CD56 positive and at least one of CK19, galectin-3, and HBME-1 simultaneously positive; IHC-NGS, immunohistochemistry and next-generation sequencing combination

Discussion

Morphological changes, including nuclear score, architecture (papillary or follicular), and growth pattern (infiltrative or encapsulated), are critical for diagnosing thyroid tumors. Based on the criteria above, major cases can be diagnosed undoubtedly. However, some cases are difficult to determine based on histological morphology alone. Compared to resected specimens, the diagnoses of biopsies are more challenging. The uncertain diagnosis rate is 10–40% for FNB and 5–20% for CNB [5]. Our comparative study between CNB and resected specimens of thyroid nodules showed that 74 of 578 cases could not be ascertained as malignant or benign based on the CNB sample’s morphology alone [6]. The reason is that only follicles visible on CNB with atypical nuclei without normal tissue as a background make it impossible to differentiate FTC, FVPTC, and CPTC with a follicular predominant growth pattern from FA, NH, and thyroiditis. Therefore, studying the application of biomarkers in distinguishing uncertain biopsy samples is necessary.
Immunohistochemistry is the most popular ancillary technique used in pathological practice. Studies on resected specimens showed that CK19, galectin-3, HBME-1, and CD56 were very helpful in discriminating malignancy from benignity [1013]. In Dunderovic et al.’s study, the sensitivity of CK19, galectin-3, HBME-1, and CD56 was 75.41%, 88.52%, 71.31%, and 58.20%, respectively, and the specificity of CK19, galectin-3, HBME-1, and CD56 was 70.89%, 64.56%, 84.81%, and 92.41%, separately [10]. Based on the knowledge above, it was supposed that IHC might play a role in improving the accuracy of diagnosing uncertain biopsy samples. We searched papers published in English in PubMed and found only one focusing on this topic. In this paper, Song et al. reported that the continued uncertain rate was 42.9% for FNB and 11.3% for CNB after IHC was applied [14].
Our study showed that, taking the resected specimens’ diagnosis as the gold standard, biomarker’s efficiency in determining the uncertain CNB samples as malignant or benign was various. Besides, even the same marker had a different power between FN and non-FN-lesions. The specificity of CD56 is perfect (100%) for both FN and non-FN-lesions, but the sensitivity is low (66.13% for non-FN-lesions and 26.09% for FN). Therefore, CD56 negative is particular for “ruling in” the malignant CNB samples; however, CD56 positive should not be used as the indicator of benignity. On the contrary, galectin-3 showed high sensitivity (95.16%) for non-FN-lesions and moderate sensitivity (73.91%) for FN but low specificity (38.46% for non-FN-lesions and 66.67% for FN). Hence, galectin-3 negative could be highly suggestive of benignity for non-FN-lesions and cautiously used to support benignity for FN. Galectin-3 positive should not be used as the indicator of malignancy.
Given the limitation of a single marker, it is judicious to diagnose based on the integrated results. Considering that CD56 has perfect specificity but low sensitivity, the combination should precisely pick back the cases left out by CD56. Our study showed that keeping the CD56-negative cases in the cohort of malignancy and picking back the cases with CD56 positive and all of the other three markers simultaneously positive was a suitable strategy to balance the specificity (92.30%) and sensitivity (88.71%) for the non-FN-lesion. But for FN, none of the combined panels had apparent advantages over a single marker.
In the past 10 years, we have witnessed significant progress in the molecular pathology of thyroid carcinoma. In 2014, The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) reported the comprehensive genomic characteristics of PTC. Ninety-seven percent of PTCs have unique molecular alterations, in which BRAF V600E mutations, RAS mutations, RET fusions, and TERT mutations are frequently detected, but EIF1AX mutations, ALK fusions, and NTRK1 or NTRK3 fusions are infrequent [15]. Subsequently, the genotypes of FTC, poorly differentiated thyroid carcinoma (PDTC), and anaplastic thyroid carcinoma (ATC) have also been reported. In FTC, RAS mutations, PPARγ fusions, and TERT mutations are frequently detected, but BRAF K601E mutations and EIF1AX mutations are infrequent. In PDTC and ATC, BRAF V600E mutations, RAS mutations, TERT mutations, and TP53 mutations are frequently detected [1618]. Based on their understanding of thyroid carcinoma’s mutational profile, researchers have tried to use diverse molecular approaches to improve diagnosing uncertain biopsy samples and have presented various published results. The sensitivity and specificity of gene testing for discriminating malignancy from benignity were 63–94% and 52–99%, respectively, with FNB [1921]. Regardless of how sensitive or specific it is, applying gene testing to FNB is inconvenient in clinical practice because specialized sample collection is required at the initial procedure. Besides, the morphology of FNB samples used in the molecular test is unknown. In contrast, CNB samples are routinely stored as paraffin-embedded blocks in which DNA can readily be extracted and morphology can be reviewed at any moment. In this case, gene testing is supposed to distinguish uncertain samples more practically and effectively on CNB than FNB.
Compared to FNB, the number of publications about CNB is minimal, and only a few single mutations have been reported [2225]. In our research, uncertain CNB samples were detected by NGS using the commercial panel OncoAim®, which detected 26 genes covering the major molecular alterations of thyroid carcinoma. The sample was recorded as NGS positive when confirmed pathogenic or likely pathogenic mutations were detected. Taking the diagnosis of the resected specimens as the gold standard, NGS is highly specific (92.31%) and sensitive (90.32%) for the non-FN-lesion, and highly specific (88.89%) but low sensitive (52.17%) for the FN. In other words, NGS’s positive result suggests malignancy strongly for both non-FN and FN. But the negative result should be cautiously used as an indicator of benignity for non-FN-lesion and not be used as an indicator of benignity for FN. Taking PPV and NPV considered together, NGS’s efficiency was high for non-FN-lesion and moderate for FN.
Because NGS is not a universal technique and different laboratories may use diverse gene panels, platforms, and methods, the working power of NGS depends largely on each laboratory’s technical details. In practice, it is a suitable way for pathologists to interpret NGS results based on the knowledge integrating the literature’s reports and own lab’s data. All of the data and analysis about NGS in our research are based on the specific commercial tool OncoAim®.
In our study, there were 37 cases with NGS negative results on CNB samples. The diagnosis of their matched resected specimens was benign for 20 cases and malignant for 17 cases. The 17 malignant cases included 11 FTC cases, 5 CPTC cases, and 1 FVPTC case. Then, we detected the 17 cases’ genes on matched resected specimens and found that 11 FTC cases were really negative and the other six were false negative, including 5 CPTC cases with BRAF V600E and one FVPTC with NRAS mutation. Furthermore, the CNB slides of the six false-negative cases were reviewed, and it is shown that very few tumor components (less than 5%) are in them. In conclusion, the inherent features of gene mutations of thyroid tumors, especially follicular neoplasm, are considered the main reason for NGS’s relatively low efficiency as a benign marker. The false-negative results due to the limitation of tumor quantity in CNB samples are another factor in weakening NGS’s power to pick up benign cases, even though the influence is lower than FNB.
Fortunately, all six NGS false-negative cases were positive for CK19, galectin-3, and HBME-1 and negative for CD56 on CNB, which gave us the confidence to make a malignant diagnosis. So, IHC plays an essential role in these cases with NGS’s false-negative results due to the limitation of tumor quantity in CNB samples.
For non-FN-lesions, either IHC or NGS can work well individually. Therefore, combining them is unnecessary and not cost-effective. On the contrary, neither of them is powerful enough for FN when used separately. So, designing an integrated panel for improving the predictive value is a practical need. Considering the treatment of FN recommended by the NCCN guideline [26], patients may benefit more from the safe “rule out” strategy than the precise “rule in” strategy. Based on this principle, we designed the integrated panel to keep the NGS positive cases in the cohort of malignancy and pick back the cases with at least one of four IHC markers positive. This panel can raise sensitivity and NPV to 100% and keep acceptable specificity (66.67%) and PPV (88.46%), which may be superior to use IHC or NGS separately. The negative FN cases are highly possible to be benign, and nodule surveillance may be recommended with a bit of worry.
Finally, although it is acknowledged that presenting the results as a risk of malignancy (ROM) than a binary fashion is more clinically valuable, such modification of ROM is currently unavailable due to limited number of cases. Hence, further research is required to explore the application of biomarkers in evaluating the ROM of uncertain samples.

Conclusions

The application of biomarkers in distinguishing uncertain CNB samples of thyroid nodules is available and capable. CD56 negative or NGS positive suggests malignancy strongly for both FN and non-FN-lesions, which may be used as a “rule in” tool. The negativity of the integrated IHC and the integrated IHC-NGS implies a high possibility to be benign for non-FN-lesions and FN separately, which can work as a “rule out” tool. Considering the balance of specificity and sensitivity, NGS is the best for non-FN-lesions and the integrated IHC-NGS is the best for FN.
Because NGS is not a universal technique, the working power of NGS depends largely on each laboratory’s technical details. Pathologists should interpret NGS results based on the knowledge integrating the literature’s reports and own lab’s data. All of the data and analysis about NGS in our research are based on the specific commercial tool OncoAim®.

Acknowledgements

We thank Mr. Yang Li from the SingleCell Biotechnology Inc., Beijing, China, for his help in writing the NGS method section of the manuscript. We thank the technical support from the Singlera Genomics Inc., Shanghai, China, for NGS testing.

Declarations

The Ethics Committee of the Peking University First Hospital approves the use of all patient samples and clinical data and the informed consent exemption (ethical approval no.: (2018) Research No. 147).
Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.
Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​.

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

e.Med Interdisziplinär

Kombi-Abonnement

Für Ihren Erfolg in Klinik und Praxis - Die beste Hilfe in Ihrem Arbeitsalltag

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de.

© Springer Medizin

Bis 11. April 2024 bestellen und im ersten Jahr 50 % sparen!

Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Teng WLY, Gao M, Huang G, Wu Y, Zhao J et al (2012) Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid carcinomas. Chin J Endocrinol Metab 28:779–797 Teng WLY, Gao M, Huang G, Wu Y, Zhao J et al (2012) Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid carcinomas. Chin J Endocrinol Metab 28:779–797
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhang M, Zhang Y, Fu S et al (2014) Thyroid nodules with suspicious ultrasound findings: the role of ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy. Clin Imaging 38:434–438CrossRef Zhang M, Zhang Y, Fu S et al (2014) Thyroid nodules with suspicious ultrasound findings: the role of ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy. Clin Imaging 38:434–438CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Lee HJ, Kim YJ, Han HY et al (2019) Ultrasound-guided needle biopsy of large thyroid nodules: core needle biopsy yields more reliable results than fine needle aspiration. J Clin Ultrasound 47:255–260CrossRef Lee HJ, Kim YJ, Han HY et al (2019) Ultrasound-guided needle biopsy of large thyroid nodules: core needle biopsy yields more reliable results than fine needle aspiration. J Clin Ultrasound 47:255–260CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Jeong EJ, Chung SR, Baek JH et al (2018) A comparison of ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration versus core needle biopsy for thyroid nodules: pain, tolerability, and complications. Endocrinol Metab (Seoul) 33:114–120CrossRef Jeong EJ, Chung SR, Baek JH et al (2018) A comparison of ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration versus core needle biopsy for thyroid nodules: pain, tolerability, and complications. Endocrinol Metab (Seoul) 33:114–120CrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Wolinski K, Stangierski A, Ruchala M (2017) Comparison of diagnostic yield of core-needle and fine-needle aspiration biopsies of thyroid lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 27:431–436CrossRef Wolinski K, Stangierski A, Ruchala M (2017) Comparison of diagnostic yield of core-needle and fine-needle aspiration biopsies of thyroid lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 27:431–436CrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Xiong Y, Yan L, Nong L et al (2019) Pathological diagnosis of thyroid nodules based on core needle biopsies: comparative study between core needle biopsies and resected specimens in 578 cases. Diagn Pathol 14:10CrossRef Xiong Y, Yan L, Nong L et al (2019) Pathological diagnosis of thyroid nodules based on core needle biopsies: comparative study between core needle biopsies and resected specimens in 578 cases. Diagn Pathol 14:10CrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Trimboli P, Nasrollah N, Guidobaldi L et al (2014) The use of core needle biopsy as first-line in diagnosis of thyroid nodules reduces false negative and inconclusive data reported by fine-needle aspiration. World J Surg Oncol 12:61CrossRef Trimboli P, Nasrollah N, Guidobaldi L et al (2014) The use of core needle biopsy as first-line in diagnosis of thyroid nodules reduces false negative and inconclusive data reported by fine-needle aspiration. World J Surg Oncol 12:61CrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Jung CK, Baek JH, Na DG et al (2020) 2019 Practice guidelines for thyroid core needle biopsy: a report of the Clinical Practice Guidelines Development Committee of the Korean Thyroid Association. J Pathol Transl Med 54:64–86CrossRef Jung CK, Baek JH, Na DG et al (2020) 2019 Practice guidelines for thyroid core needle biopsy: a report of the Clinical Practice Guidelines Development Committee of the Korean Thyroid Association. J Pathol Transl Med 54:64–86CrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Ricardo V. Lioyd RYO, Gunter Kloppel, Juan Rosai. WHO classification of tumours of endocrine organs. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC),2017. Ricardo V. Lioyd RYO, Gunter Kloppel, Juan Rosai. WHO classification of tumours of endocrine organs. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC),2017.
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Dunderovic D, Lipkovski JM, Boricic I et al (2015) Defining the value of CD56, CK19, Galectin 3 and HBME-1 in diagnosis of follicular cell derived lesions of thyroid with systematic review of literature. Diagn Pathol 10:196CrossRef Dunderovic D, Lipkovski JM, Boricic I et al (2015) Defining the value of CD56, CK19, Galectin 3 and HBME-1 in diagnosis of follicular cell derived lesions of thyroid with systematic review of literature. Diagn Pathol 10:196CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Saleh HA, Jin B, Barnwell J, Alzohaili O (2010) Utility of immunohistochemical markers in differentiating benign from malignant follicular-derived thyroid nodules. Diagn Pathol 5:9CrossRef Saleh HA, Jin B, Barnwell J, Alzohaili O (2010) Utility of immunohistochemical markers in differentiating benign from malignant follicular-derived thyroid nodules. Diagn Pathol 5:9CrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Pyo JS, Kim DH, Yang J (2018) Diagnostic value of CD56 immunohistochemistry in thyroid lesions. Int J Biol Markers 33:161–167CrossRef Pyo JS, Kim DH, Yang J (2018) Diagnostic value of CD56 immunohistochemistry in thyroid lesions. Int J Biol Markers 33:161–167CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Zargari N, Mokhtari M (2019) Evaluation of diagnostic utility of immunohistochemistry markers of TROP-2 and HBME-1 in the diagnosis of thyroid carcinoma. Eur Thyroid J 8:1–6CrossRef Zargari N, Mokhtari M (2019) Evaluation of diagnostic utility of immunohistochemistry markers of TROP-2 and HBME-1 in the diagnosis of thyroid carcinoma. Eur Thyroid J 8:1–6CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Song S, Kim H, Ahn SH (2019) Role of immunohistochemistry in fine needle aspiration and core needle biopsy of thyroid nodules. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol 12:224–230CrossRef Song S, Kim H, Ahn SH (2019) Role of immunohistochemistry in fine needle aspiration and core needle biopsy of thyroid nodules. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol 12:224–230CrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Cancer Genome Atlas Research N. Integrated genomic characterization of papillary thyroid carcinoma. Cell 2014; 159: 676–690. Cancer Genome Atlas Research N. Integrated genomic characterization of papillary thyroid carcinoma. Cell 2014; 159: 676–690.
16.
Zurück zum Zitat D’Cruz AK, Vaish R, Vaidya A et al (2018) Molecular markers in well-differentiated thyroid cancer. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 275:1375–1384CrossRef D’Cruz AK, Vaish R, Vaidya A et al (2018) Molecular markers in well-differentiated thyroid cancer. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 275:1375–1384CrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Landa I, Ibrahimpasic T, Boucai L et al (2016) Genomic and transcriptomic hallmarks of poorly differentiated and anaplastic thyroid cancers. J Clin Invest 126:1052–1066CrossRef Landa I, Ibrahimpasic T, Boucai L et al (2016) Genomic and transcriptomic hallmarks of poorly differentiated and anaplastic thyroid cancers. J Clin Invest 126:1052–1066CrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Acquaviva G, Visani M, Repaci A et al (2018) Molecular pathology of thyroid tumours of follicular cells: a review of genetic alterations and their clinicopathological relevance. Histopathology 72:6–31CrossRef Acquaviva G, Visani M, Repaci A et al (2018) Molecular pathology of thyroid tumours of follicular cells: a review of genetic alterations and their clinicopathological relevance. Histopathology 72:6–31CrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Patel KN, Angell TE, Babiarz J et al (2018) Performance of a genomic sequencing classifier for the preoperative diagnosis of cytologically indeterminate thyroid nodules. JAMA Surg 153:817–824CrossRef Patel KN, Angell TE, Babiarz J et al (2018) Performance of a genomic sequencing classifier for the preoperative diagnosis of cytologically indeterminate thyroid nodules. JAMA Surg 153:817–824CrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Steward DL, Carty SE, Sippel RS et al (2019) Performance of a multigene genomic classifier in thyroid nodules with indeterminate cytology: a prospective blinded multicenter study. JAMA Oncol 5:204–212CrossRef Steward DL, Carty SE, Sippel RS et al (2019) Performance of a multigene genomic classifier in thyroid nodules with indeterminate cytology: a prospective blinded multicenter study. JAMA Oncol 5:204–212CrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Sadowski SM, Petrenko V, Meyer P et al (2019) Validation of molecular biomarkers for preoperative diagnostics of human papillary thyroid carcinoma in fine needle aspirates. Gland Surg 8:S62–S76CrossRef Sadowski SM, Petrenko V, Meyer P et al (2019) Validation of molecular biomarkers for preoperative diagnostics of human papillary thyroid carcinoma in fine needle aspirates. Gland Surg 8:S62–S76CrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Choi SH, Baek JH, Lee JH et al (2015) Evaluation of the clinical usefulness of BRAFV600E mutation analysis of core-needle biopsy specimens in thyroid nodules with previous atypia of undetermined significance or follicular lesions of undetermined significance results. Thyroid 25:897–903CrossRef Choi SH, Baek JH, Lee JH et al (2015) Evaluation of the clinical usefulness of BRAFV600E mutation analysis of core-needle biopsy specimens in thyroid nodules with previous atypia of undetermined significance or follicular lesions of undetermined significance results. Thyroid 25:897–903CrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Choi SH, Baek JH, Lee JH et al (2016) Initial clinical experience with BRAF(V600E) mutation analysis of core-needle biopsy specimens from thyroid nodules. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 84:607–613CrossRef Choi SH, Baek JH, Lee JH et al (2016) Initial clinical experience with BRAF(V600E) mutation analysis of core-needle biopsy specimens from thyroid nodules. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 84:607–613CrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Crescenzi A, Trimboli P, Modica DC et al (2016) Preoperative assessment of TERT promoter mutation on thyroid core needle biopsies supports diagnosis of malignancy and addresses surgical strategy. Horm Metab Res 48:157–162PubMed Crescenzi A, Trimboli P, Modica DC et al (2016) Preoperative assessment of TERT promoter mutation on thyroid core needle biopsies supports diagnosis of malignancy and addresses surgical strategy. Horm Metab Res 48:157–162PubMed
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Jang EK, Kim WG, Kim EY et al (2016) Usefulness of NRAS codon 61 mutation analysis and core needle biopsy for the diagnosis of thyroid nodules previously diagnosed as atypia of undetermined significance. Endocrine 52:305–312CrossRef Jang EK, Kim WG, Kim EY et al (2016) Usefulness of NRAS codon 61 mutation analysis and core needle biopsy for the diagnosis of thyroid nodules previously diagnosed as atypia of undetermined significance. Endocrine 52:305–312CrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Thyroid carcinoma. In Version 3.2020-February 2 (ed). 2021; THYR2–4. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Thyroid carcinoma. In Version 3.2020-February 2 (ed). 2021; THYR2–4.
Metadaten
Titel
Application of biomarkers in the diagnosis of uncertain samples of core needle biopsy of thyroid nodules
verfasst von
Yan Xiong
Xin Li
Li Liang
Dong Li
Limin Yan
Xueying Li
Jiting Di
Ting Li
Publikationsdatum
26.07.2021
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
Virchows Archiv / Ausgabe 5/2021
Print ISSN: 0945-6317
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-2307
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-021-03161-y

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2021

Virchows Archiv 5/2021 Zur Ausgabe

Neu im Fachgebiet Pathologie